to the popular sentiment expressed with great unanimity at
the late election, to persist in their scheme of forcing the
burden of a state government upon this people by cunningly
devised oaths to be administered to the members of that
convention and by an organization of the minority of that
body, notwithstanding its adjournment by the majority, and
that such a project, and the first suggestion of such a
project, by repudiated and debauched politicians, deserves,
and will receive the opprobrium, and its authors will meet
the fate of revolutionary fanatics, faithless to public duty
and defeated in treasonable measures.15 . . .

The committee which presented the
resolutions consisted of J. Sterling Morton, chairman, James
M. Woolworth, John Finney, William H. Spratlin, Dr. George
B. Graff.
But this invective is quite inconsistent
with the admonition of the principal pro-state organ:

Indeed, there is no occasion for the
delegates to meet to gether at the capital at all. If it is
clear that there is a majority elected, who will oppose the
making of a constitution, why not remain at home and let the
whole thing go by default? Such a course will save
the members the amount of their traveling expenses,
and no time will be lost. If no quorum appear, the matter is
settled, and the enabling act goes for naught. We therefore
suggest, in all good faith, that the members agree among
themselves that they will remain at home. All
expenses can thus be saved. Why spend two thousand dollars
in coming to the Capitol to adjourn? If the members
have to divide the expense among themselves, it will
work unnecessary hardship. If they should decide to saddle
it upon the tax-payers of Nebraska, for whom they have
recently evinced such 'tender emotions,' it would be
cruel, and besides it would have an ugly look. There
isn't the slightest show that Uncle Sam will 'foot the
bill.' The only safe course, therefore, is to stay
at home.16

This advice, though prudent, was
disingenuous if not contradictory; for it turned out that
the paternal federal government recognized this expenditure
as a just liability
15 Ibid., July 1, 1864.16 The Nebraska Republican
(Omaha), June 10, 1864.

396

NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY

--perhaps because, as we have seen, its own representatives
had prompted its incurrence. The Republican of July
15, contains a letter from Samuel Maxwell to Algernon S.
Paddock, secretary of the territory, authorizing him to
donate the mileage and per diem due the writer of the letter
as a delegate to the convention, to the United States
Sanitary Commission, and a reply from Paddock, in
appropriately "patriotic" phrase, informed the devotee
delegate that the sum of $10.50 had been sent to relieve the
needs and sufferings of the soldiers.
Forty-three delegates appeared at the
convention. Whether or not nine others, making the full
complement, were elected, does not appear from the
newspapers, the only known source of information. At any
rate, the advice of the Republican to the delegates to stay
at home was not much heeded. The annals of the convention
are short and simple. It met at the capitol, and was called
to order by John Patrick, of Omaha. The committee on
credentials consisted of Alfred H. Jackson, of Douglas
county; Cornelius O'Connor, of Dakota; Charles F. Walther,
of Richardson; Jefferson B. Weston, of Gage. Sterling P.
Majors (father of Thomas J. Majors), of Nemaha, was
temporary president, and Edwin A. Allen, of Washington,
temporary secretary. On the informal ballot for permanent
president, John Patrick received twenty votes; Sterling P.
Majors, ten; John W. Chapman, nine; John Finney, one. Majors
was elected on the first formal ballot, receiving
twenty-three votes against twenty cast for Patrick. Algernon
S. Paddock, secretary of the territory, administered the
oath of office to the members. Immediately after
organization was completed Jackson, of Douglas, offered the
following resolution:

Resolved, That this convention
adjourn, sine die, without forming a
constitution.

HOW NEBRASKA WAS BROUGHT
IN

397

Thirty-seven votes were cast for the
resolution and seven against it, whereupon the convention
adjourned."

CONSTITUTION OF 1866.

Notwithstanding the rude repulse of
1864, Governor Saunders continued rather timidly to coy with
and coddle the elusive object of ambitious political desire
in his message to the legislative assembly of 1865; and he
worked into this wooing an altruistic patriotic plea that
the people of the territory ought to relieve the mother
government from her great financial burden, due to the war,
to the extent of establishing a self-supporting state
government:

During your last session a joint
resolution was passed, asking Congress to pass an act to
enable the people of Nebraska to form a Constitution
preparatory to an early admission into the Union as one of
the independent states. Congress passed the act, but it was
done near the close of the session, and there

was scarcely time enough allowed, between the date of the
reception of the bill in the Territory and the election of
the members of the Convention, for the people to learn of
its passage--certainly not enough to enable them to
consider, thoroughly and dispassionately, the principles of
the bill or the terms on which it was proposed to admit the
Territory into the family of States. Under these
circumstances, a large majority of the people decided that
the members of the Convention should adjourn without forming
or submitting any Constitution whatever. This decision of
the people, under the circumstances, was just what might
have been anticipated. It, however, is no proof that when
convinced that liberal terms are proposed by the General
Government they would not readily consent to take their
place in the great family of States. One of the great and
leading objects of forming Territorial Governments is to
take the first step towards making a State. This is
undoubtedly the object and aim of all Territories.
The strongest argument used against the
admission into the Union, by those who opposed it, is
perhaps the last one that should be resorted to by friends
of our Government. I allude to the argument that we ought
not to tax ourselves for anything which the General
Government is willing, or is bound to pay. In other words
that, so long as the General Government is willing to pay
the expenses of the Territory, so long the people should
refuse to change their form of Government. All parties are,
I presume, ready to admit that our Government has quite as
much as it can well do to maintain itself against its wicked
enemies, who are trying to overthrow it; and it seems to me
that all loyal and Union-loving people would be willing to
assist in bearing their proper burdens; at least, that they
should not longer insist on drawing from the General
Government that which we might provide for ourselves. Your
own knowledge of the wishes of the people--being fresh from
their midst--will enable you to decide whether or not the
people would desire any further action at present on this
subject. I shall therefore leave the whole subject with you,
believing that you will decide the matter in accordance with
their wishes.18
These renewed but timid advances were not
reciprocated, and no measure for reviving the issue was
introduced in either House. By the next year, however, the
statehood desire had revived in Republican, and found
lodgment in some Democratic breasts.
18 House Journal of the
Legislative Assembly, tenth session, page 18.

HOW NEBRASKA WAS BROUGHT
IN

399

On February 5, John R. Porter, of Douglas
county, introduced Council file number 22, "A joint
resolution submitting a constitution for a State government
to the people for their approval or rejection," the election
to be held on the second day of June, 1866, and conducted in
the same manner as elections for territorial officers.
After the second reading the resolution
was referred to a special committee consisting of John B.
Bennet, of Otoe county; John R. Porter, of Douglas; John W.
Chapman, of Cass; and, on the same day, the committee
recommended the passage of the measure. After some
filibustering and an attempt to amend the judiciary article
of the constitution, the resolution was read a third time,
under suspension of the rules, and passed by a vote of seven
to six. Those voting aye were Bennet, of Otoe county;
Chapman, of Cass; Thomas L. Griffey, of Dakota; Andrew S.
Holladay, of Nemaha; J. G. Miller, of Cass; Oliver P. Mason,
of Otoe; John R. Porter, of Douglas. Those voting nay were
Isaac Albertson, of Platte; Edwin A. Allen, of Washington;
Corrington Blanchard, of Sarpy; George Faulkner, of
Richardson; Benjamin E. B. Kennedy, of Douglas; Jeremiah
McCasland, of Pawnee.
In the House there were unsucessful (sic)
attempts to obstruct the passage of the resolution, but it
was passed on February 8, by a vote of 22 to 16. The
assumption of statehood was again opposed on the ground that
the additional expense of a state government was unnecessary
and would be oppressive. On the other hand the section south
of the Platte favored state government on the ground that
under territorial government the north of the Platte
section, and especially Omaha, because it contained the
capital, was able to procure undue governmental favors,
while, under a purely local state government, the south
Platte section, having a preponderance

400

NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY

of the population, would come into control. And so, of the
twenty-two affirmative votes, only seven were cast by North
Platte members while, of the sixteen negative votes, nine
were by North Platte members.
On January 26, Charles H. Brown, a
Democratic leader, of Douglas county, introduced into the
House the following fiery preamble and resolution:

WHEREAS, Certain
official politicians have assiduously sought, through
specious arguments, to create a sentiment in favor of, and
induce the people to change their simple and economical form
of government, which heretofore has been and now is a
blessing, for one which will have many new, useless and
burdensome offices, to be filled by persons ambitious to
occupy places of profit and trust, even at the expense of
the taxpayers, and which will in its organization and
operation necessarily be burdensome and ruinous to an extent
which none can foresee, and consequently involving a
taxation which will eat out the substance of the people;
AND WHEREAS, we
believe that all political power, and the right to retain or
lay aside forms of government, reside in and naturally
pertain to the people, and that in all cases where a radical
change in form of government and laws is intended to be
effected, involving personal rights or great expenditure of
treasure, the same should be accomplished only after the
people have expressed their desire for such a result, by
choosing, through the ballot box, their representatives,
with express reference thereto;
AND WHEREAS, the
people of this territory but a short time ago, with almost
entire unanimity, expressed their unqualified disapproval
and condemnation of any attempt to force on them the
grinding taxation incident to, and schemes of politicians
for, state government, and have not since then, by ballot or
otherwise, expressed a wish for increased and increasing
burdens and taxation;
AND WHEREAS,
personal interest and selfish considerations are strong
inducements and powerful incentives for individual or
combined action, and certain politicians have industriously
sought again to force state government upon the people, and
compel them again at great expense and trouble, whether they
wish or not, to consider that question, and through fraud
and chicanery fasten this incubus upon them;
AND WHEREAS, his
excellency, Alvin Saunders, the chief executive federal
officer of this territory has, with great consider-

HOW NEBRASKA WAS BROUGHT
IN

401

ation, after the rebuke given but a brief period ago by the
people to political schemers for state organization, again,
by plausible arguments, thrust, in his annual message at
this session, this repudiated question upon the Legislative
Assembly for its action, and has sought, in an unusual
manner, to force a constitution 'by whatever body or by
whomsoever made,' upon the people of this Territory, without
giving them even the small privilege, to say nothing of
their absolute and almost unqualified right, to select
whomsoever they might see fit to comprise that body, through
whose actions they might entrust so grave and vital a
question as making a constitution;Therefore, be it resolved, as the
sense of this House, that it is unwise to take any steps
which will throw this question upon the people without their
first having asked for its submission to them.

On motion of Lorenzo Crounse, then of
Richardson county, consideration of the resolution was
postponed until July 1, 1866--beyond the limits of the
session. The vote on the resolution was 20 to 14, nearly a
party division.19
On February 9, a resolution offered by
James A. Gilmore, of Otoe county, that a committee of five
be appointed by the speaker, "to investigate charges of
bribery and corruption which have been made in relation to
the passage of the joint resolution submitting a
constitution to the people," was passed unanimously. This
committee, at first, comprised Joseph Arnold, of Cass
County; Lorenzo Crounse, Richardson; James A. Gilmore, Otoe;
Joseph W. Paddock, Douglas; James Thorn, chairman, Otoe. On
February 10, Guy C. Barnum, of Platte, and Charles H. Brown,
of Douglas, were substituted for Gilmore and Paddock, who
were excused from further service.
On February 12, a majority report and a
minority report were submitted, the first signed by Thorn,
Barnum and Brown, the second by Crounse and Arnold. On
19 Ibid., eleventh session,
pages 91-92.27

402

NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY

motion of Samuel Maxwell, of Cass, the minority report was
adopted without roll call.
The following account of the proceedings,
by the Omaha Republican (weekly) of February 16,
1866, though colored by partisanship, throws an interesting
light on the episode.

Mr. Thorn, from the select committee to
investigate alleged bribery and corruption in the passage of
the joint resolution submitting a constitution to the people
for ratification or rejection, proposed to submit the
pencilled notes of the testimony taken by a majority of the
committee as the report of the majority. Mr. Lake objected,
and desired that the majority should, in accordance with the
purposes expressed in the resolution of Mr. Gilmore, report
some conclusion arrived at by them from the testimony, with
a recommendation of the committee for the action of the
House. He further contended that the testimony had either
inculpated some person or persons, or that there was no
sufficient foundation for the investigation. All that he
desired was that the committee should discharge its duty by
reporting something for the definite action of the House.
Mr. Brown, a member of the committee, contended that the
house was bound to receive the voluminous pencilled,
blurred, erased and interlined notes of the testimony made
by the majority of the committee, and have it spread upon
the journals as the report of the committee, and that the
House must draw their own conclusions therefrom without any
further aid from the committee. That for his part he was
unwilling to say that the committee would not take the
responsibility of preferring a charge.
The testimony was recommitted to the
committee, on motion of Mr. Lake, with instructions to
report some conclusion, if any, the committee had arrived
at, or that there was no sufficient testimony to justify
one.
Mr. Thorn, from the select committee above
noticed, presented again the report of the majority with the
testimony. Mr. Crounse, from the minority of the committee
presented a report. The majority and minority reports, and
the testimony accompanying them, was now read. Mr. Maxon
moved that the minority report be adopted, and upon this
motion there was a protracted debate, in which Mr. Lake,
Crounse, Brown and Barnum participated. Mr. Lake and Mr.
Crounse contending that the majority of the committee had
failed to fulfil the requirements of the house, as they
still refused to report anything for the definite action of
the house.

HOW NEBRASKA WAS BROUGHT
IN

403

Mr. Crounse said that the majority of the
sessions of the committee had manifested the utmost
partiality and unfairness, calling witnesses without
consultation with the minority, and examining them with no
reference to the exposition of the alleged bribery and
corruption, but clearly and manifestly with the intent of
manufacturing capital against the constitution and its
friends. That the majority of the committee had, in charity,
he must believe, been prompted by unscrupulous partisans,
who were hanging around the House and endeavoring to defeat
and unpopularize the State movement by the most debasing
arts of desperate demagogues, manifesting thereby a
consciousness of their inability to meet the friends of
State in an open and fair field fight; that this mode of
warfare was in character with the man who led the
opposition. He also said that the investigation had proven
that offers were made to State men that if they would vote
to divide the election of the officers and the submission of
the Constitution, that the opponents would vote for a bill
of considerable importance, in which some of the State men
were interested--a bill for the incorporation of the
Missouri Colonization Society. Mr. Crounse further said that
the testimony when fairly reviewed established the fact that
no means, even of the most desperate resort, were to be
spared in the contest against State; that it was only for
the purpose of blinding and misleading the people that the
investigation had been concocted; that they hoped to
unpopularize the State movement by diverting the minds of
the people from the matchless fundamental law presented for
their consideration with its economical provisions for the
administration of the State government, and the development
of the resources of the country, and the advancement of all
the material interests of the people, for whom it was framed
and from whom it must receive its vitality, by dastardly
attacks upon the character of some of its friends.
Mr. Brown replied by denying that such was
the purpose of its opponents. The house then adopted the
minority report made by Mr. Crounse.
The minority report, signed by Lorenzo
Crounse, then of Richardson county, and Joseph Arnold, of
Cass, was very partisan in spirit and language and J.
Sterling Morton was, of course, the object of its most
animated aspersions, a deserved tribute to his ability,
boldness and superiority to consistency. The accusers
contended that the investigation was instituted by that

404

NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL
SOCIETY

branch of the House which was opposed to statehood and urged
on by outside politicians to defeat it, by such unfair means
as damaging personal reputations.

As a proof of this we might refer to the
following facts which appear in the testimony: one J.
Sterling Morton, editor of "Nebraska City News," a would-be
leader of the democracy of the territory, and active
anti-state man before, during and since the submission and
passage of [the] joint resolution, has spent most of
his time on the floor of this House caucusing with members,
drafting buncombe political resolutions for members to
introduce in the House, by which its time was occupied to
the exclusion of more legitimate and profitable business.
The appointment of this committee would seem to have been
directed with a view to this end; the very chairman, the
Hon. Mr. Thorn, appears, by the evidence, to have been an
instrument used by said J. Sterling Morton to introduce a
resolution "blocked out" by him, and directed against state.
The Hon. Mr. Brown, as appears by the House Journal, was the
introducer, if not the framer, of another preamble and
resolution against state, of a most insulting character, and
which was most summarily disposed of by this House.

The investigation adduced testimony to
show that Morton had approached John B. Bennet, member of
the Council from his owm county of Otoe, with a proposition,
signed by fifteen anti-state members of the general
assembly, that if pro-state members would separate the
question of state from that of the election of state
officers, the fifteen would go for the suspension of the
rules, and pledge themselves that the bill for submitting
the constitution to the people should not be defeated. With
the exception of the charge that pro-state partisans had
attempted to bribe Theodore H. Robertson, member of the
House from Sarpy county, the offenses considered in the
report were of no greater turpitude than those immemorially
and commonly ascribed to legislative bodies. But this
accusation, of gravest import and commonly counted too
important to be ignored, was dismissed on the bland
presumption that the alleged offenders, both of the
first